paxx, yes we have some real ringers here also...

Not all of them live out in the woods playing at being Special Forces for the day that the government comes to take their guns.

We just put one to death who killed two people with a shotgun to stop abortions and claimed God would love him for it...

We have a General right now who is one serious religious fanatic who claims that it is a wolrd wide Religious War of Christianity against evil Muslims and that God put GW Bush into the white house to take up arms against the evil ones...

Matter of fact he has a commision with the Pentagon...

Boy that should really calm the Muslims of the world and ensure the Iraqi's know it isn't a crusade we have taken up against Islam.

EventH, somethings are not for joking about....

that topic happens to be one of them

That would be like joking that the Jews must have really pissed Hitler off...

here as in the states...

wanted to clarify that

IPlural said: "Your God is all powerful correct?"

I had a good friend in college whose mother was insane. He spend his childhood either taking care of her or visiting her in an institution. He told me that he finally decided that he had to chose whether God would allow such suffering, or that there was no God at all. I will never forget him looking me in the eye and saying that he had too much respect for the concept of God to accept that there could *be* such a God. It was one of the most 'holy' things I have ever heard anyone say. I have no fear for his soul. When people pose questions like yours, that is what i think of. That experience is why I don't fret too much about atheists.

We all find our answers or leave them blank as we choose. If you decide there is no God because of it, then I respect your opinion. "bow or broil and forever toil" is a bit much for me, too. There are as many interpretations of devotion as there are people. That was my point to Motion; you can't talk about 'groups', because the concept is meaningless in terms of spirituality.

Anyway, you know how many times questions like yours have been asked here. I don't think there is any reason to reiterate the numerous possible answers and annoy those that wouldn't accept them the first dozen times. If the questions are still being asked, then they'll just be asked again next month.


Paxx: I agree. I would go so far as to say that the only stance that requires no faith at all is Agnosticism. It takes faith to come to any conclusion. I think many Atheists here are more apt to fall into Montaigne's "Que sais-je?" category. I think a true Atheist would deny being one, just as August Comte said that to call himself an Atheist would mean he was taking religion too seriously.


I dunno why I fall so deeply into these discussions. I always break all my own rules.

paxx,

re Tennessee, etc.

Unfortunately, there's a pretty substantial number of such people here in the states, especially in the central parts. I live in Oklahoma, and there are people like that here, also. They aren't everywhere, and the whole state isn't like that (and neither is Tennessee), but sometimes that's what gets the attention.

Unfortunately, such attitudes are less about faith than about indoctrination. I'm not bashing anyone who truly believes, but even the true believers don't accept victimhood as the price of faith, only the indoctrinated can be convinced to bear that burden.

I may have teased Kona a bit when I asked him if he'd change his view if God told him to (I am curious about his response ), but I personally know people who cannot even consider the idea without dissonance (one girl I know was practically in pain at even having to think of the concept when I asked her the same question). If one cannot even consider questioning what they're taught (by anyone), that's a sure sign of indoctrination, rather than faith.

There is nothing wrong with the *concept* of religion as an avenue to faith, but unfortunately, there seems to be quite a bit of failure with religion in practice. Far too often, God and faith are used by humans to gain power for themselves instead of guiding faith in God. Bow or broil (as IPlural mentioned), is often the weapon used in such venues. The mantra is often, "You *must* believe as we tell you to believe or the most horrible things you can imagine will happen to you". My problem with that viewpoint is that it is the moral equivalent of holding a gun to someone's head and telling them what to do. You don't get true faith based in love and honor, you only get a weak analogue of faith, imposed by fear.

Motivation matters. Why one believes is at least as important as what one believes. I personally, have been told that it would be best if I 'believed' (followed their particular religion), JUST IN CASE! Does a person making such a statement not comprehend that were I to do so, God would see right through such a fraud? Even if I am wrong, I would rather face God honestly, instead of pretending to be something I cannot be.


IPlural,

The body of your previous post is usually summed up as 'Why bad things happen in the face of an all powerful God'.

Certainly, there is no easy answer. My own viewpoint stems from my belief about creation and growth. First, to clarify one point, I do not anthropomorphize God. To picture God as human like in form or quality is, IMHO, a vast underestimation. One thing that should be clear to most people is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to truly concieve of or visualize a person or being that is fundamentally more wise or intelligent than we are. Even among humans, a genius is quite often smarter *in a different way* than others are. The difference is not merely one of degree. And a human genius is merely a microscopically small leap of ability when compared to what God must be.

Given such a vast gulf in knowledge and capability, what we see as harmful may actually be an integral part of the process, and may even be required for growth.

For human beings (as individuals), the periods in our lives where we made the greatest gains in wisdom and understanding and other forms of personal growth were virtually *always* directly tied to difficult or unpleasant or painful events.

For human beings (as a species), such growth we have achieved as a whole has also been predicated on the overcoming and learning from pain and challenge and hardship.

Free will and freedom to choose a course of action are required for growth. Experience comes, not from the circumstances we find ourselves in, but from the choices we make in response to those circumstances.

I make no assumptions about what the ultimate purpose is, whether God has some specific plan, or if He merely wants us to grow and learn to whatever ultimate limit may exist. For now, I am content with the need for growth, whatever the ultimate goal may be.

As for why God (despite all of the power He is reputed to have) does not intervene to prevent or ameliorate the pain and suffering we experience, the above seems to me to be at least part of the answer. Additionally, one of the other thought processes that I entertain in such a regard is that the act of intervention may be more harmful than what is being intervened against.

An example I often use is a house of cards analogy. Lets say that I have painstakingly constructed an elaborate, detailed, expansive structure from thousands or even millions of cards. There is no argument but that I have the ability (power) to reach in and alter the state or position of a card, or even remove it entirely. However, the act of actually doing so may very well prove catastrophic to the structure as whole. Depending on the purpose for which I constructed this edifice, the risk of catastrophe may be beyond my willingness to accept, and I would therefore not alter that card, even if it would create a local improvement at that point. I believe that it is possible that God has similar self imposed constraints on His actions.

BTW, to answer your question about acting against someone engaging in harm to another person (whether a child or not), I would consciously and willingly intervene, no matter if someone else decided I shouldn't. Such force would be applied as to assure that the act was clearly stopped. If the only force sufficient was lethal, then the attacker would die. I have no moral quandary in such a circumstance, as the attacker, having voluntarily engaged in that action, has freely relinquished any expectation of non interference. The life and / or well-being of the attacked supersede the life and / or well-being of the attacker.

part of the reason that evil is allowed to hurt others is free will given to all mankind, but sometimes it revolves around larger issues.

what appeared to be happening at Christ's crucifixion: a man who'd done no wrong was mocked, flayed with a roman flagellum, beaten beyond recognition, spat upon, and nailed to a cross to slowly suffocate as his burning chest muscles gave out. And yes, God could have easily stopped all of this abuse of His beloved son but did not intervene.
what actually happened was of so much greater import than Christ's immediate sufferings that He was willing to endure it, and a loving Father was willing to permit it and watch it.

Christ was sent here to suffer for others, and the servant does not get better treatment than his master.

The Sovereign of the universe is a loving God, but not a vending machine! You don't jump in a pew every sunday, sing a few hymns, say a few prayers, give a little money and then pull the handle demanding that health, wealth, and protection be dutifully doled out to you at your command! You get to choose whether to dance ( and be blessed ) when God plays the fiddle, but He doesn't take direction from you and dance to your tune - ever. He will grant your requests that are truly in the best interest of yourself and all others concerned ( on His timetable, not yours), but He never accedes to your demands or presumptuousness.

why children suffer is always a much harder, emotionally charged issue to deal with, and it's very hard to see any hidden, greater good that might come from it. i suffered in certain ways at the hands of my father. my wife and kids are in open accord that i am a loving, wise, insightful, and amazingly patient father. i am those things primarily because of what i suffered as a child, for those characteristics are the exact opposite of my natural nature.

thanks for your patience if you read my meanderings this far.

EventH, somethings are not for joking about.... that topic happens to be one of them

Correct, religion is not something to joke about, and I dont intend to make a mockery of it or others beliefs. Let me re-word what I have said...

motion:

Ive met plenty of nuns in my lifetime but none who were sadistic kid-haters.
Many kids have gone through Catholic schools such as the one you mentioned, but I have yet to meet a one who has had their finger(s) unwillingly amputated by a metal ruler.
Like I mentioned in my earlier post, you must've done SOMETHING to deserve the punishment. People dont go around whacking kids knuckles just becase they feel like it.

EH: I don't know where exactly motion was raised nor his age, but I know that here in Quebec such places existed before the 60's. A lot of them. We still have to this day people sue the Catholic Church for physical and psychological damages they went through in the 50's.
My opinion on this is that it's the reason why there has been such a turnaround in Quebec. The 60's is known in Quebec as the "Quiet Revolution", where such a drastic change occured that it might as well be called a Revolution although nobody took arms or anything. In just a matters of a few years, the Churches totally emptied, and people completely turned their back on religion. The baby boomers became adults, angry towards the abusive priests and nuns.
Today, in Quebec, many Churches are closing down, and you're lucky to find 12 people at Sunday service in the ones that are still opened.

paxx, yeah spare the rod and spoil the child and over zelous perceptions of what is evil can come into play with some. Here in the states it was quit common, another was the paddel. A 1 x 6 or 1 x 8 cut down in the shape of a modified cricket bat with holes drilled into it and then stained or clear coated was and still is used in some places. Once I had a teacher I had offended put one of those across my lower back when he missed my ass swinging it with both hands. My legs went totaly numb and my legs gave out causing me to drop straight to the ground. My chin slambed the desk top and ended up chipping two front teeth and biting a chumk out of my lip. All because it was not safe to sleep at night at home and I had fallen to sleep in class for the 5 time and he was going to make an example of me.

In Tampa Florida last month they gave the schools the right to make use of corperal punishment again. It will probably set a trend around the state to some degree over the next couple of years. If anyone and I mean anyone lays a hand on my child I will break them. Not beat them up, not argue with them, not run to the cops or try to sue them. I will locate them and beat them to within an inch of their life. Jails a joke and *no one* belongs touching my child, I do not even do that and there is not any need to.

EH,

Unfortunately, people do go around 'whacking kids knuckles' (and worse) merely because they feel like it. This behaviour is certainly not restricted to religion by any means.

There are people who are most definitely not qualified enough (or emotionally mature enough) to be placed in a position where they are allowed to supervise and / or discipline others (especially children). However, far too many of these people *do* end up in such positions, both inside and outside of a religious context.

To say that someone 'deserved' abuse at the hands of such people is clearly wrong. Discipline is one thing, and often, people do deserve that. Abuse is entirely different, and no one deserves that, regardless of the position of the abuser (or even what the abused may have done).

Aleatoric , exactly so...

Though for me there is a point that I have reached with each of my children only once that I swatted them on the butt. Only one time each and that is all it ever took. Each time was when they were between 4 and 5 years of age and throwing a complete tantrum, one swat, I ignored them for about ten minutes and then we calmly discussed it on a level they could grasp. They learned from that point forward I would always allow them to voice their thoughts on any subject as long as a level of respect was remember while doing so and I had the last say on any subject. I have always been completely honest with them about my past and the things that I have done such as using drugs. In being honest with them I circumvented the theory that it is best to lie to them and allow them to stumble through it without any fore warning of the truths envolved with it.

My Son Justin was 11 years old the first time a joint was offered to him at school and he delt with it without partaking of it or alienating his friends and then came home and asked me about it. I explained that he would do drugs eventually of some sort even if it was drinking and that only he could decide if he would rather have that be a part of his life or not. I could say NO until I turned blue in the face and it would not make much of a difference in the end. Then I went on to explain the money lost, trouble gained, jail time spent, friends that died and times I almost died and in the end what it did to me before I decided enough was enough.

He tried it out, did the circuit of common highs this generation has running around. Drank like a fish for a bit and then at 16 a close friend went to sleep one night and in the morning when his older sister went to wake him up for school, she found him dead. A few months later one was kidding around doing acid riding in a car down the Interstate heading to where the kids hang out near us and climbed up into the window and sat on the door. Someone told him to get in the car and for some stupid reason he bent into the car and smiled, then said I'll race you and jumped from a car doing 65 mph onto a 4 lane highway head first. There were a couple more, just as stupid but not exactly the same, the thing is my son came to me one night and said "you were right, I thought you were just talking, you know, like a parent does, but you were right" you see he has had 5 friends die and one is now in an institution and drugs of some sort had a part in each case.

That does not include the couple of suicides.

It is up to a parent on how they will raise their child in the end. But for me honesty and respect given to them always seems to have led them to like in retun with me. My boys were not angels and they were not always given fair treatment because of how they presented themselves in dress or the way they delt with others because they were and are out spoken and honest to a fault at times. But both are in the service now and are rated extreamly high on all reviews and the opinions held of them by their leaders.

My daughter, man... She is 8 years old, 4 foot tall, long blonde hair and has deep blue eyes. I am at a loss on what comes next with her (sigh)...

Though she is into martial arts, soccar, biking, in line skating, singing and drawing
She is also mommys trouble and daddys girl

Might be timely to suggest getting back on topic.......don't forget the thread title, folks....

I hope that you will find eventually that you were wronged by people, not by God or spirituality as a whole.

I agree with that.

One should approach this issue by looking at four fundamental questions that every religion seeks to answer:
origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.

Comparing them all in equal fashion, I believe that the answers of Jesus Christ correspond to reality. There is a coherence among His answers unlike those of any other religion.

Jafo yeppers

Well if God made it he was either hung over or has one sick sense of humor

I think the main question of creation vs. evolution comes down to bumper stickers. The creation-Jesus fish vs the darwin fish. Fish with legs rock so I'll stick to evolution. Of course the world could have been created by superintelligent mice....

Seriously, I think that creationism, as it is in the bible, is a crock. There is too much evidence supporting evolution. Evolution also makes sense. God might of created the universe, but at a much earlier time like the big bang.

I also feel that religion's main purpose is morality, upon which your destiny and meaning are dependent. Origin is the topic of discussion here, and while it is a part of almost every religion, I think that it shouldn't be. Religion ought to be about relationships between people for today and tomorrow. The main teachings of Jesus focus on morality so maybe his goal was to create a morally superior world not a religiously superior(Christian in some opinions) one. Also I think that morals should stay out of law but thats off topic.

Rate PG, dunno about about other religions or Christianity really. But, to me it seems that what he said was more common sense for the process of uplighting everyone without excluding anyone. Some how it all got washed out in the process of religion and more meaning has been placed on the act of proving your ability to toe the line laid out by others to prove you *are* foudn to be faithful to the process rather than faith itself in many instance.

It is like the Virgin Mary thing and immaculiant(spelling) conception. Was She a Virgin? and had she been married before, the first marriage ended just in time (before 2 years ended) so she could be re-labeled a virgin again as some historians claim? Also in order for a marriage to be a marriage she had to consumate it, so if she was married previously she wasn't a virgin...

Travis

In traffic seeing a bumper with "God is my Co-Pilot" stuck on it with dents all over the car always gave me pause

Also in order for a marriage to be a marriage she had to consummate it,

Where does it say that?

I didn't know God could drive

IP, I've read books that say that Mary was like 12 or so when she became pregnant, and was probably a virgin. You know, it happens. The hymen can sometimes be very flexible and won't break the first time. Again, according to the same book I read Joseph was probably an old man then. Mary was an orphan and he he took her into his home. But she became pregnant, probably from one of his sons (yes, Joseph had been married before and had 3 grown boys).  To save the face, he had to marry her, and he did.

I could recommend the book, but I don't think it's been translated in English. Gerald Messadie is the author, and the title of the book would translate "The man who became God" in English.

Creation VS evolution? Odd thing is you can count on one hand the number of 'creationists' here in this discussion that have a problem with Evolution, and yet it is a never ending stream of criticism of ALL religion from the secular side. Frankly, when you see the *same* people on page 30 making the same stabbing comments about religion that they were on the first few pages... well, it is telling. They seem to have other drums to bang besides Evolution.

This isn't a debate that would be benefited by attrition; a good, six-month grilling isn't gonna make anyone discard their spiritual beliefs. As it stands most religious criticism has been repetitive, misinformed, blanket statements that fail to target Fundamentalists, or even Creationists. Immaculate conception, and the "devil in the details" arguments are irrelevant. Even as shared doctrine there aren't 2 religious people here that are gonna agree on it all. Judging Christianity by such is like judging Islam based upon 9/11 or Bali. I don't have a problem with most resident atheists, but I am getting pretty sick of seeing details of my own beliefs characterized as symptoms the world's ills.

If you have problems with God, take them to email, or God, or to therapy, but don't insult billions of people who have a spiritual stake in a Creator and no axe to grind with you. Sorry if I seem cold, but I feel no care or caution from a few people regarding my own beliefs, and I feel less and less obligated to tread lightly. Occam's Razor can cut both ways. It would be a shame, though, so lets avoid it. A bit of introspection would be preferable to slicing up one another any further.

Ya know those emblems you see on cars...Fish (creation) & Fish w/legs (evolution)? Well, on the back of my Jeep, I had them both and they were ummmmm "doing it"!

I loved droping my kids off at school in that thing...Yeah, no...I'm not PTA

Na, you don't seem cold BakerStreet, impassioned maybe, but cold, no..

And it shouldn't be taken as personal by anyone and isn't taken personal by me, what you've stated, it just is fact of how you feel.

China

Baker,

Yeah, it's often sad how discussions of this type tend toward the unnecessarily confrontational (religion and politics, that's what we're told to avoid ).

Truth is, creation vs evolution is, at heart, basically a religious discussion, even though the arguments are often a spectrum rather than a pair of polar opposites. Given that, it's not surprising that ancillary religious issues will be aired. Often some of those side issues tend to be supporting of the primary argument, if only that they are used to explain the thought processes of the person making the statement. In the sense that I may have another drum to bang, it is in this context of a supporting argument or a response to someone elses argument.

That said, I do agree that acrimony and blanket attacks are both unnecessary and counter productive. The typical sociological injuction against religion in discussion is seemingly predicated on the idea that the participants somehow cannot remain civil and mature. While that is often true, my opinion is that such a position speaks to the worst of us, and I prefer to look for the best (not that it always shows up ). Such discussions touch very close to the heart of ourselves. When things engage us so intimately, responses are often instinctive rather than thoughtful, moreso where the subject still has great sensitivity.

I have nothing but respect for those who truly believe (either way). I do not engage in these types of discussion with the intent of changing a belief or castigating the believer. I will attempt to correct any fallacies (logical or factual) that I encounter, just as I'm willing to be corrected on any fallacies I may present. The fundaments of personal faith, however, should not be assailed. My own desire for self integrity (and my respect for the self integrity of others) indicates this belief. I may not agree, but I will not demean.

If we can keep our objectivity, such a discussion as this can be very enlightening and thought provoking. I have seen information and sources from both sides of the argument that were new to me, or required me to really think through to respond. For me, such interaction is the heart of personal growth.

[Message Edited]

While I agree that certain comments have been made which are a little inappropriate, some of which were intended as non-serious icebreakers by myself, I don't agree that the bias of this thread has been heavily on the side of those who don't believe in creation bashing other's beliefs. If anything, I've found that there are more religious people willing to condescend and dish out unwanted sympathy than there are non-religious people denying God outright.

Here's how I see the differences between the two groups: In general, those who believe in a God are completely closed off to any other possibility beyond that which they have been taught through organised religion. If someone were to ask them to admit that there's even the smallest possibility that they could be wrong, they would start screaming from the rooftops about blasphemy and the devil. On the other side, you have those who don't believe in God. In general, they will admit that given enough tangible proof they would be open to the possibility of God's existence. They will even admit that long-held scientific 'facts' can be, and often are, either a little incorrect or completely untrue. They are open to the possibility of other truths beyond that which they have been taught.

I understand that religious people feel a need to protect their beliefs in the face of even the slightest opposition, but I will never understand their need to try and push those beliefs onto others who don't share them. You don't often find people walking down the street with leaflets proclaiming the word of Science, simply because scientists like to give you the information and let you make your own mind up. It would be nice if religious people could respect the beliefs of others and just once in a while admit that they could be wrong.